Sophists love to quote themselves, as John-Paul II used to. They are also big experts (archbishoplefebvrology, donatism, Church Fathers etc.) Let me archbishoplefebvre you in my turn:

“That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. [it has new… new… new…] The Church that admits such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is therefore not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (Reflections on a suspension a divinis, June 29 1976). “Let there be no mistake. It is not a question of a difference between Mgr Lefebvre and Pope Paul VIth. It is a question of radical incompatibility beween the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church”. (note of July 12th 1976 to AFP) “Vatican II is a schismatic council” (Aug 76). “All who cooperate […] and adhere to this new Conciliar Church […] enter into schism” (Le Figaro, Aug 2 1976). “A Church which no longer brings forth fruits, a Church which is sterile is not the Catholic Church” (Ordinations 1978). “The modernist Rome is changing religion? I refuse it and reject it […] I refuse that church” (Dec 9 1983 press conference). After reviewing the four marks of the Church, in favor of us, the Archbishop concluded: “All this shows that it is we who have the marks of the Visible Church. If there is still a visibility in the Church, it is thanks to you. Those signs are not found in the others. We are not of this religion, we do not accept this new religion, (goes on and on and on…)” (Fideliter 66 nov 1988). “Upon reflection it appears clear that the goal of these dialogues is to reabsorb us within the Conciliar Church, the only Church to which you make allusion during these meetings” (May 24th 1988). “Resulting from these principles and facts is the absolute need to continue the Catholic episcopacy in order to continue the Catholic Church” (Letter to Bishop Castro de Mayer, Dec 4th 1990).

(These are only a few quotes, on a specific topic; the Church. On other topics, the Archbishop spoke; take for instance the Pope, whom he called an “Antichrist”. That quote, you are going to tell me, is purely rhetorical, and certainly doesn’t mean that the Pope is a heretic, or it is a very limited quote, or a quote to be understood restrictively! And, mark my words, with such a Pope as Pope Francis, the Archbishop would never use such a language, also because the triumphant 70’s are over: he would have the same restraint, prudence and diplomacy that Bishop Fellay has used with Pope Francis for a month and a half, and many more months to come)

Now, also, let me profit from the occasion. With the blessings of Frs Couture and Rostand you embark to prove that the Conciliar Church is a part of the Catholic visible Church, using the quote of a man who says that the new Church is neither Catholic, nor the Catholic Church! (top and bottom of left column, page 8, Apostle)! Your sophistry is outstanding! If I am neither pfeifferic nor Fr Pfeiffer, how can I be a part of that entity, no matter how big that entity is?

To uphold his credibility, Fr Cacho publishes locally a series of talks of the Archbishop called “They are changing our religion!”, indeed a famous expression of the Archbishop, alongside the “New Rome”, or “Rome of neo modernist tendencies”. Distinct Faith (ordinations 1976), distinct Rome, distinct Church, distinct religion.

It all points to something we don’t love and don’t recognize; something dying, dead or deathly to billions of souls, and you conclude that we must recognize and be recognized by this new Religion, this new Rome. There are caveats in the thought of the Archbishop, for he says to whatever extent one unites to the novusordo, he separates himself from God, which means that some people still have the faith or may be saved despite the novusordo, but certainly not because of it. There are novusordo people that are rescuable from it, our faithful are the proof of that. To describe such a church leading into apostasy, I think the best image is the conveyor belt: those who are on it have not yet all fallen in the abyss. But there you go again, in your last letter, you want us to run on this belt, canonically of course, and run against it because we are true Catholics. This is what you say, you want us to be in that structure, that you call the order willed by Jesus-Christ. Our souls are in danger out of that conveyor belt, canonical devices are in place to allow us to run fast on it and denounce its errors at the same time.

And if I grant you that a dead part of a body is in a body (Fr Simoulin 2001 argument)… it will always be on the way out; the body will always do whatever it can to rid itself of the necrosis. Similarly, it is not because we cannot say “outside the SSPX no salvation”, nor say that all novus ordo people go to Hell, nor know at what moment this separation actually takes place that we don’t have a process leading to two separate entities, like in the meiosis and mitosis of a cell. The two things, entangled as they may, are still really separating, way before the end of times. Ask the millions of souls that have lost, not just the state of Grace, as St Augustine refers to, but the Catholic Faith. They are cut off from us, they refuse to believe that Christ is God or that Mary is a Virgin, like Cardinal Muller. They bear an appearance, nothing else. They really have already fallen off the vine, totally, unlike simple sinners, (that you confuse with heretics).

What you fail to realize is that the whole work of the Archbishop, from 1965 to March 25th 1991 was to keep us clear from this operation of death called novusordo Church. Two isolated quotes after June 1988 won’t do. After June 88 the Archbishop denounced the protocol, simply because it would have placed us under the wrong people, and the consecration of Bishops was the best way to escape them. People were very grateful, nobody was thinking much of the protocol at the time, except the Fraternity of St Peter). The approval of Bishop Charriere is the certification of an escape pod. Haven’t we always compared ourselves to a life boat, a rescue operation, a little bench of survivors? Like the sedevacantists, I think you try too much to figure it out. This whole process, involving the damnation of so many souls is beyond our comprehension. Just be happy to stay clear and safe; keep the lifeboat discipline, (which, by the way, Bishop Fellay is not keeping by asking, like you, to paddle towards the vortex!).

_________________In Christ our King.

Wed May 01, 2013 9:08 am

TKGS

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 amPosts: 391Location: Indiana, USA

Re: Fr. Chazal on two churches

I would be interested in learning what thoughts this piece provoked. I confess that I am too simple to have had many thoughts provoked by these comments.

The present crisis in the Church is deeply mysterious, in the sense that there are so many things about it which are inherently unclear. There are two attempts to explain this crisis which arise from minds imbued with Catholic theology: the SSPX position, and the properly sedevacantist position. There are various other views which arise from minds infected with Protestant error, or with Modernism, or with philosophical error. Examples include the typical Novus Ordo theory (unity of faith is unnecessary), the Cassiciacum Thesis (philosophical error and a refusal of the traditions of theology) and the ideas of Bishop Williamson (Anglican errors).

What is absolutely fascinating about the present debate between Williamson, Chazal, and some in the SSPX, is the focus on ecclesiology, on the mystery of the crisis in the Church. Where is the Church? Of what members does she consist? etc.

More material on this question can be found here: (my article on Archbishop Lefebvre on this question, and Fr. Gleize's contribution on the same matter): viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1201

Fr. Laisney is an all-or-nothing writer. This is a decided weakness, and it is most clearly so in matters requiring some subtlety, in which the issues are really quite fine distinctions. Fr. Laisney, for example, writes:

Quote:

And the reasoning seems to be this one: the occupiers of the See of Peter and Roman Congregations are “the apostates of Rome”, men wholly dedicated to “the ideas and ideals of the Second Vatican Council,” which is “the great apostasy of modern times”; any agreement whatsoever with them, any canonical recognition by them, makes one a collaborator in that great apostasy of modern time, a liberal, great enemy of God.

Now in all honesty, such reasoning was NEVER the reasoning of Archbishop Lefebvre! Indeed on March 22nd 1980, he was saying...

And he goes on to quote the Archbishop saying that he recognises as Successors of the Apostles the hierarchy of the new church. Well, whatever one may think of the text that Fr. Laisney chooses to quote, all informed readers will immediately reject his dogmatic assertion that Bishop Williamson's attitude to the Modernists "was NEVER the reasoning of Archbishop Lefebvre!"

Fr. Laisney could credibly have said, "such reasoning was not the consistent, long-term, reasoning of Archbishop Lefebvre," (no caps, and no exclamation mark) and in that way make an assertion (which he would then have had to prove) without pretending that it is incontestable. Instead, he has laid himself wide open to numerous counter-quotes in which Archbishop Lefebvre did indeed say very clearly that at least the chiefs of the Novus Ordo hierarchy are apostates, antichrists, heretics, etc., and that he wanted nothing to do with their sect, their schismatic church, their new religion, etc.

This is not the way to win a PR war, or even a debate.

The next substantial point Fr. Laisney makes is, if possible, even weaker.

Quote:

Does recognizing Pope Francis as the legitimate pope makes one a modernist? By doing so, we simply recognize the fact of his legitimacy as supreme pontiff, as the Archbishop said above. That part in him is still Catholic. And if that Catholic part does recognize us, it will neither make us modernists. Moreover, such reasoning manifests “to have lost its grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth.” Thus you fall in the very default that you accuse others. Indeed, Catholic Truth is not something you can take in part: either you believe the whole Faith or you have lost the whole Faith. Now one essential article of the Catholic Faith is precisely the faith in the Catholic Church, and especially the “faith in Peter”

The central point of this passage, the point with which it begins, is entirely correct. "Does recognizing Pope Francis as the legitimate pope makes one a modernist? By doing so, we simply recognize the fact of his legitimacy as supreme pontiff, as the Archbishop said above." Nobody would dispute this much. Unfortunately, Fr. Laisney then confuses the entire question. "That part in him is still Catholic. And if that Catholic part does recognize us, it will neither make us modernists." What is a "part" of a Roman Pontiff? And how does that undefined "part" recognise the SSPX as Catholics? This is nonsense. It is made even worse by what immediately follows. "Catholic Truth is not something you can take in part: either you believe the whole Faith or you have lost the whole Faith." Was Fr. Laisney trying to prove himself wrong?

Fr. Laisney then proceeds to instruct Bishop Williamson in ecclesiology, instruction which the ex-Anglican badly needs, but which Fr. Laisney does not appear equipped to deliver.

Quote:

Catholic Faith teaches us that we cannot be saved alone, separated from the Church. Faith alone is not sufficient; without Charity, that “bond of perfection” (Col. 3:14) which binds us with Christ and with each member of Christ, it is impossible to go to Heaven. “And if I should have ... all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, ... and have not charity, I am nothing... it profiteth me nothing” (I Cor 13:2-3). If this internal bond with the Church, consisting in sanctifying grace and charity, is absolutely necessary for salvation, the external bond of the Church, consisting, as St. Robert Bellarmine teaches, in the profession of the Catholic Faith, the practice of Catholic worship (starting with the sacrament of Baptism) AND the hierarchical communion is also necessary for salvation, “re aut voto”; that is, in case without fault on one’s part one of these external aspect is not possible in fact, then at least the “votum – the firm desire and will” of it is necessary for salvation. Thus the Catholic Church teaches that the very desire of a proper canonical situation (in which basically the hierarchical communion consists) is necessary. Read St. Robert (quoted in Is Feeneyism Catholic? p. 40): he clearly says that if such hierarchical recognition is unjustly denied, the lack of it may not be an obstacle to salvation; but if it is not even desired, then that very lack of desire for hierarchical communion is an obstacle to salvation.

This is fine theology, but terrible ignorance of fact. The profession of faith is indeed the first of those outward bonds which constitute the visible unity of the Church. It is precisely the refusal by the Modernists to profess the faith which renders their claim to be Catholics - and most especially, their claim to be Successors of the Apostles - dubious. Fr. Laisney's position appears to be that the profession of faith is a meaningless notion, as long as one has at least a desire to be subject to the hierarchy - any hierarchy? - no matter what faith it professes.

One does not need to be a one-eyed sedevacantist to detect that this whole approach is absurd and unCatholic. The crisis in the Church is a crisis of faith. It is, par excellence, a crisis of profession of faith. Whether or not various members of the hierarchy have retained internal faith, many if not most have abandoned the profession of the orthodox faith. Ignoring this notorious reality only makes Fr. Laisney look ridiculous.

Fr. Laisney senses that his reasoning is not entirely watertight, perhaps, and adds:

Quote:

You might say: yes, I want proper hierarchical communion, but with proper Catholic authorities, not with those presently occupying Rome. My answer is: this is basically the sedevacantist position, and was NEVER Archbishop Lefebvre’s position, nor is it in conformity with reality: it is not true.

The caps-lock appears to serve the purpose of highlighting Fr. Laisney's least secure assertions. Whether or not Paul VI or JPII were popes was, in the view of Archbishop Lefebvre, arguable. There is no possible doubt about this, yet Fr. Laisney chooses to shout the opposite at the reader. A much more sensible approach, and one which might win over unsure readers, would be to take the Archbishop's record as a whole and recognise it for what it was, granting whatever can be granted to Bishop Williamson and Co., and then showing that even so, they are mistaken.

More later.

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue May 14, 2013 11:52 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Fr. Chazal on two churches

Fr. Laisney wrote:

In some of your writings (Various Churches) you present the situation as if they are in the Conciliar Church and not in the Catholic Church, presenting the Catholic Church as only that part of the visible Church which would have remained sound. Here are your words:

That part alone of the visible Church is Catholic which is one, holy, universal and apostolic. The rest is various sorts of rot.

Now such thinking was NEVER the thinking of Archbishop Lefebvre. (See my own text on Various Churches?) He never considered the Catholic Church as merely a part of the whole visible Church, a part whose boundaries would no longer be clearly visible, a part where there would no longer be a proper hierarchy, since as you wrote in that same text: “the ‘official Church’ is largely Conciliar and not Catholic.” The error of reasoning in that text is to confuse the being/essence and its properties/marks: from the fact that the four Marks of the Church are less visible in many areas due to the errors of the Council, especially the scandalous ecumenism, one cannot conclude that they are “not Catholic”.

Precision in the use of terms is absolutely vital in these matters, and again in this example we observe both Bishop Williamson and Fr. Laisney at sea in their use of terms. The inability to choose the correct words reveals a lack of clarity in thought.

Fr. Laisney is quite right in rejecting Bishop Williamson's comment, "[t]hat part alone of the visible Church is Catholic which is one, holy, universal and apostolic," yet when Fr. Laisney tries to explain why this is so, he creates even greater confusion. He begins well (i.e. after his habitual caps-lock raising of voice), "[Archbishop Lefebvre] never considered the Catholic Church as merely a part of the whole visible Church..." This is true, and no Catholic could rightly disagree. The Church herself is visible, necessarily so, and therefore the term "visible Church" in such a context must mean the Catholic Church whole and entire, not some portion of it. Of course, it doesn't follow that whatever is visible is necessarily Catholic, for the Greek churches are visible, and so is the Anglican sect. What Bishop Williamson should therefore have written is something like, "That alone is Catholic which is one, holy, universal and apostolic. The rest is various sorts of rot, entangled with the Church, obscuring the Church, but not truly part of the Church."

Unfortunately, having rejected Bishop Williamson's mistake, Fr. Laisney then tangles himself up in meaningless phrases. Consider again the whole passage:

Fr. Laisney wrote:

He never considered the Catholic Church as merely a part of the whole visible Church, a part whose boundaries would no longer be clearly visible, a part where there would no longer be a proper hierarchy, since as you wrote in that same text: “the ‘official Church’ is largely Conciliar and not Catholic.” The error of reasoning in that text is to confuse the being/essence and its properties/marks: from the fact that the four Marks of the Church are less visible in many areas due to the errors of the Council, especially the scandalous ecumenism, one cannot conclude that they are “not Catholic”.

On the one hand, Fr. Laisney admits that "the four Marks of the Church are less visible in many areas due to the errors of the Council," yet on the other hand, he rejects the notion that the "boundaries [of the Church] would no longer be clearly visible" as a result. Now this is, in the abstract, not necessarily self-contradictory, but in reality it makes no sense. The reason is that the Church is a body of men. The Church as she is today, as in every age, is a group of men who each are members and parts of her. Every single individual alive at every single moment since the first Pentecost is either a member of Christ's Mystical Body or not a member of Christ's Mystical Body. There is no third possibility. Any given individual may be a member of other bodies in addition, but one cannot be a Catholic and also not a Catholic at the same time. And these members are the parts of the Church, the constituent components of which she is composed. Of the two groups which make up the human race, one constitutes the membership of the Catholic Church, and the other does not.

Now, it is equally true that in some cases it is difficult or impossible to tell whether a particular person is a member of the Church. This may be due to several causes, including unorthodox expressions or actions which render the person's faith doubtful. In fact there is always a fairly large class of such men in the world. Each of them is either a Catholic or he isn't, yet it is equally true that most observers, perhaps none, can be certain which is the case. Now the existence of such unclear cases renders the boundaries of the Church slightly obscure. That is, the precise point at which she ends is unclear. Take a group of ten men. Five of them are manifestly Catholics (baptised, regulars at mass and the sacraments, and display no heterodoxy). Four are manifestly non-Catholics (baptised or not, they actively assist at false worship, never darken the door of a Catholic church, and do not claim to be Catholics). The last of them is young - say twelve years old - and was validly baptised as an infant by an Anglican minister, and therefore certainly became a member of the Catholic Church at that time. Has he left the Church yet? Within two years, if he remains in the Anglican sect, the Church's law will presume that he has left the Catholic Church, lost his membership. But today, has he forfeited his membership or not? We may find it impossible to tell, even if we could speak to the young fellow directly. So, the question is, does the Catholic Church in this place end with the last of the five clear Catholics, or does she end with the sixth member, and only exclude the four clear non-Catholics?

From the most important point of view, the point is actually moot. This level of precision is unnecessary to the point of the visibility of the Church. She remains perfectly visible in any case.

But her boundaries are necessarily slightly obscure. I repeat, this is always the case, in every era. However in some periods the Church is more sharply clear to all, and in other eras she is somewhat obscured by schisms, heresies, etc. Today, I think all will admit, she is gravely obscured. She is eclipsed, as Our Lady predicted. Now, Fr. Laisney rejects the notion that the Church's "boundaries would no longer be clearly visible," and in this context that phrase suggests that he has not really thought about the question with which he is grappling. For if "the four Marks of the Church are less visible in many areas due to the errors of the Council," this can only mean that her members are less united in faith (i.e. due to "the errors of the Council"); and in turn, this implies necessarily that it has become less easy to identify who are truly the members of the Catholic Church and who are actually heretics. And if that is true, then it is equally true that the "boundaries [of the Church] would no longer be clearly visible."

Fr. Laisney then attempts to go to the heart of the matter. "The error of reasoning in that text is to confuse the being/essence and its properties/marks: from the fact that the four Marks of the Church are less visible in many areas due to the errors of the Council, especially the scandalous ecumenism, one cannot conclude that they are 'not Catholic'." This betrays a truly great confusion of thought. The marks of the Church are precisely the external signs by which her essence, her being, is visible as such. If these are lacking, then one can be certain that the body one has in view is not the Church. That is the very purpose of the marks of the Church. The Vatican Council expressed it with sublime beauty:

Vatican I wrote:

So that we could fulfill our duty of embracing the true faith and of persevering unwaveringly in it, God, through his only begotten Son, founded the Church, and he endowed his institution with clear notes to the end that she might be recognized by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed word.

To the Catholic Church alone belong all those things, so many and so marvelous, which have been divinely ordained to make for the manifest credibility of the Christian faith.

What is more, the Church herself by reason of her astonishing propagation, her outstanding holiness and her inexhaustible fertility in every kind of goodness, by her Catholic unity and her unconquerable stability, is a kind of great and perpetual motive of credibility and an incontrovertible evidence of her own divine mission.

Fr. Bourmaud, in his book "100 Years of Modernism," highlights this necessary role of the Church herself as a living witness to Revelation in the logical process of conversion. If the Church were to lack her marks, she would not be the Church; or, to put it in simpler terms, the body which lacks the marks of the Church is not the Church. The collapse in conversions was predicted by Archbishop Lefebvre on the floor of the Council precisely because he foresaw that the obscuring of the faith by the Council would harm the credibility of the Church. This poses a difficulty for all traditional Catholics, a difficulty which lurks beneath our various disputes about the crisis, including the present dispute between Bishop Williamson and Fr. Laisney. To his credit, the former is grappling openly with it. Fr. Laisney, unfortunately, is essentially arguing as if the problem does not exist, and in doing so finds himself ignoring numerous penetrating and confronting comments made by Archbishop Lefebvre over the course of his post-Conciliar career. Such an approach will not, ultimately, work, even as an exercise in PR. It cannot succeed as theology or apologetics.

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon May 20, 2013 12:01 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Fr. Chazal on two churches

Having said that the Williamson faction is the more frank in grappling with the problem that the "Conciliar church" represents, I have to add that the majority faction to which Fr. Laisney belongs is right in asserting that the other side is essentially sedevacantist in its analysis and principles. On sedeplenist principles it is very difficult to fault Bishop Fellay's approach, even if it remains possible and necessary to disagree with some of his specific acts (and most especially, his text of April 15, 2012, which even Fr. Laisney gently condemns). But on sedeplenist principles, it is very difficult to see how the Williamson faction can really think that their own views are the only reasonable and lawful ones. That is, it is impossible to sympathise with their condemnation of Bishop Fellay. If they had said, "Well, we see why he's done what he's done, but we respectfully disagree and we think he ought really to have done otherwise," that would be understandable. But to condemn a man for responding positively to an overture from the Roman Pontiff???

So what we have are only two serious theories of the Church in crisis, divided according to their answer to this question: Is the claim of Francis to the authority of Rome beyond dispute? If it is, as Fr. Laisney very emphatically argues, then the notion of a "Conciliar church" will tend to be purely abstract, a mere means of labelling a trend, a tendency, a complex of novel ideas and practises. But if Francis's claim is legitimately disputable, then the notion of the "Conciliar church" tends to concreteness, indicating a sect of Modernists posing as Catholics and using false claims of authority in order to destroy the true Church.

In any case, the one group that simply doesn't matter is the so-called Resistance. It has no serious theory to present.

So, what of Fr. Laisney's central thesis, that all Modernists remain Catholics, at least canonically, and that none of them have lost their membership in the Church? It's silly, obviously. It's hard to credit that he really believes it.

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue May 21, 2013 2:34 pm

Cristian Jacobo

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pmPosts: 552Location: Argentina

Re: Fr. Chazal on two churches

John Lane wrote:

So, what of Fr. Laisney's central thesis, that all Modernists remain Catholics, at least canonically, and that none of them have lost their membership in the Church? It's silly, obviously. It's hard to credit that he really believes it.

Well... but you have as well the followers of G. des Lauriers saying that until you be admonished by the authorities you remain legally (?) member of the Church... so Fr. Laisnet is not alone

Des Lauriers agrees with the SSPX on some major points.

And for the so called resistance I think they will argue that Bp Fellay has contradicted the last stance of Abp. Lefebvre that there won´t be any dialogue with rome until they convert... not that I agree with that statement, but I think they`d say something like that.

Well... but you have as well the followers of G. des Lauriers saying that until you be admonished by the authorities you remain legally (?) member of the Church... so Fr. Laisnet is not alone

Cristian, yes, but two things. 1. None of them can cite an authority. 2. Guerard really believed it. In fact, my guess is that the SSPX got it from him, exclusively. They certainly didn't learn it in any books! This is the kind of legalistic-mechanistic-mathematical notion to which his mind was natural prey. The mathematician loved the idea that somebody was either a Catholic or he was not a Catholic. That was fine. But that in any given case different men could legitimately form different judgements, was not something that his mind could cope with. A nice crisp judgement by a single authority simply must, he reasoned, intervene in each case, and in its absence the culprit remained a Catholic, period.

The SSPX, on the other hand, in my experience does not seem really to believe this in the same way. What I mean is, they don't see why it must be true; it doesn't fit into any larger theory of the Church, her nature, he membership, etc., and it doesn't dovetail with their philosophy, which is Aristotelian. It's just a loose idea which they learned in the seminary and have never critically examined, because it suits their position.

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

Des Lauriers agrees with the SSPX on some major points.

Does he? What else do you have in mind?

One thing strikes me as a huge contrast between them: Des Lauriers had a complete theory, whereas Archbishop Lefebvre had none at all. The latter simply admitted that a future pope may judge that these conciliar criminals were not popes, but until then we regard them as legitimate popes. This is, essentially, the absence of a theory, the admission that one does not comprehend what is happening, and is prepared to leave the solution to others. My feeling is that Bishop Fellay differs from the Archbishop on this, at least in emphasis. He thought that Benedict's status was beyond dispute, I reckon, and that explains his reaction to Benedict's overtures. Fr. Laisney is of the same school. (One thing I've been watching, to see if any data appears, is the Society's attitude to Francis. So far only this is apparent: They really don't like him! But whether they might now be less dogmatically sedeplenist is not yet apparent.)

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

And for the so called resistance I think they will argue that Bp Fellay has contradicted the last stance of Abp. Lefebvre that there won´t be any dialogue with rome until they convert... not that I agree with that statement, but I think they`d say something like that.

They absolutely do say that, but their problem is that Archbishop Lefebvre was unpredictable and we all know that it is an entirely legitimate debate as to what he would have done in the face of Benedict's sweet-talking over the past few years. One would think from the heat and the condemnatory language coming from the "Resistance" that "what the Archbishop would have done" is a matter of faith!

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue May 21, 2013 11:20 pm

Cristian Jacobo

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pmPosts: 552Location: Argentina

Re: Fr. Chazal on two churches

John Lane wrote:

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

Well... but you have as well the followers of G. des Lauriers saying that until you be admonished by the authorities you remain legally (?) member of the Church... so Fr. Laisnet is not alone

Cristian, yes, but two things. 1. None of them can cite an authority.

Well Bp Sanborn quotes 16 theologians... so I`d say "none of them can cite an authority in support of this asertion"

Quote:

2. Guerard really believed it. In fact, my guess is that the SSPX got it from him, exclusively. They certainly didn't learn it in any books! This is the kind of legalistic-mechanistic-mathematical notion to which his mind was natural prey. The mathematician loved the idea that somebody was either a Catholic or he was not a Catholic. That was fine. But that in any given case different men could legitimately form different judgements, was not something that his mind could cope with. A nice crisp judgement by a single authority simply must, he reasoned, intervene in each case, and in its absence the culprit remained a Catholic, period.

I never thought the SSPX learned it from des Lauriers, but it is quite possible! In a sense I think the SSPX are more logical (at least in this specific case), because they reason: "he is Catholic, therefore he is Pope" whereas des Lauriers said "he is Catholic but he is not Pope, in spite of a valid election".

Quote:

The SSPX, on the other hand, in my experience does not seem really to believe this in the same way. What I mean is, they don't see why it must be true; it doesn't fit into any larger theory of the Church, her nature, he membership, etc., and it doesn't dovetail with their philosophy, which is Aristotelian. It's just a loose idea which they learned in the seminary and have never critically examined, because it suits their position.

But in a sense this is more dangerous right? I mean if you accept NN as a Pope you are in danger of accepting everything it comes from rome. I don´t know just thinking aloud

Quote:

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

Des Lauriers agrees with the SSPX on some major points.

Does he? What else do you have in mind?

Well I was thinking specifically in the fact that for them the solution to this crisis will come from Francis, and also because for them the Catholic Church is the church to which Francis presides. SSPX cannot escape from this conclusion, whereas those who follow Guerard believe in a "material legal" hierarchy (whatever that means). Now my reasoning is the following:

This kind of apostolic succession is either a positive note or a negative note. If the first, then that is the Church and they have all the other notes. If it is not a positive note, then since that "negative note" is found only in the Church submitted to Bergo, therefore, as the theologians teach, that negative note "works" as if it were a positive note, which means it is a clear sign that the true Church is the one submitted to Bergo.The reason for this is that positive notes are found only in the Catholic Church whereas negative notes are found in the Catholic Church and may be found in other sects. Which means that if a negative note is found in one group, that is the true Church of Our Lord. This is common sense.

Quote:

One thing strikes me as a huge contrast between them: Des Lauriers had a complete theory

And, to say the true, this is a very good point in favor of his theory against other sedevacantists.

Quote:

whereas Archbishop Lefebvre had none at all. The latter simply admitted that a future pope may judge that these conciliar criminals were not popes, but until then we regard them as legitimate popes. This is, essentially, the absence of a theory, the admission that one does not comprehend what is happening, and is prepared to leave the solution to others.

Granted, but I think that Abp Lefebvre had to have concluded that since they were doubtful Popes he couldn´t regard them as such. You know, Papa dubius Papa nullus

Quote:

My feeling is that Bishop Fellay differs from the Archbishop on this, at least in emphasis. He thought that Benedict's status was beyond dispute, I reckon, and that explains his reaction to Benedict's overtures. Fr. Laisney is of the same school.

Indeed, they were fascinated by Ratzinger. Some even miss him!

Quote:

(One thing I've been watching, to see if any data appears, is the Society's attitude to Francis. So far only this is apparent: They really don't like him! But whether they might now be less dogmatically sedeplenist is not yet apparent.)

Well they have been rather quite silent about him, or not? The strange thing is that here in Argentina there was no rejection of him. At least not what you`d have expected.

Quote:

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

And for the so called resistance I think they will argue that Bp Fellay has contradicted the last stance of Abp. Lefebvre that there won´t be any dialogue with rome until they convert... not that I agree with that statement, but I think they`d say something like that.

They absolutely do say that, but their problem is that Archbishop Lefebvre was unpredictable and we all know that it is an entirely legitimate debate as to what he would have done in the face of Benedict's sweet-talking over the past few years. One would think from the heat and the condemnatory language coming from the "Resistance" that "what the Archbishop would have done" is a matter of faith!

Well Bp Sanborn quotes 16 theologians... so I`d say "none of them can cite an authority in support of this asertion"

Yes, of course, that is what I meant, and the assertion is so fundamental to their whole view!

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

I never thought the SSPX learned it from des Lauriers, but it is quite possible!

Well, Des Lauriers was the senior (by far) professor of dogmatic theology at Econe during the seminal period, and had the prestige of being the principle author of the Ottaviani Intervention, so if they didn't learn it from him, I don't know where they got it. They clearly didn't get it from the books - it isn't there!

I looked for it in Archbishop Lefebvre's writings, and it isn't there either, by the way. Indeed, he held the oposite view, as was evidenced in various places, but most clearly in his 1986 conference to seminarians regarding whether the See might have to be considered vacant. So the other members of the SSPX didn't get it from Lefebvre.

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

In a sense I think the SSPX are more logical (at least in this specific case), because they reason: "he is Catholic, therefore he is Pope" whereas des Lauriers said "he is Catholic but he is not Pope, in spite of a valid election".

I already have no patience for Des Lauriers' nonsense. Don't encourage me in my impatience!

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

Well I was thinking specifically in the fact that for them the solution to this crisis will come from Francis, and also because for them the Catholic Church is the church to which Francis presides. SSPX cannot escape from this conclusion, whereas those who follow Guerard believe in a "material legal" hierarchy (whatever that means). Now my reasoning is the following:

This kind of apostolic succession is either a positive note or a negative note. If the first, then that is the Church and they have all the other notes. If it is not a positive note, then since that "negative note" is found only in the Church submitted to Bergo, therefore, as the theologians teach, that negative note "works" as if it were a positive note, which means it is a clear sign that the true Church is the one submitted to Bergo.The reason for this is that positive notes are found only in the Catholic Church whereas negative notes are found in the Catholic Church and may be found in other sects. Which means that if a negative note is found in one group, that is the true Church of Our Lord. This is common sense.

I presume you mean, "if a negative note is found in ONLY one group, that is the true Church of Our Lord."

I have much more time for what I understand to be the (heretical) Cekada theory than for this one, Cristian. Fr. Cekada's theory is that all offices are vacant but the offices themselves still exist and therefore they provide for continuity with the Church of the past - this is formal without material succession; when there is a pope, he will fill the offices which have continued to exist right through the universal vacancy and so there will be a material succession again which of course will also be formal. All good. The only problem with this theory is that it seems blatantly against very clear doctrine to admit a universal vacancy. So one premise is wrong, but the rest of the principles seem straightforward and exactly right to me.

The Greeks are said to have only material succession precisely because even though the offices they claim are true offices of the Catholic Church, they do not have any true possession of them, merely a kind of violent occupation of the externals that belong by right to those offices. They lack formal succession. Therefore they have none of the powers of the offices they claim, none at all. Their claims are null. In the true Church succession is necessarily formal, of course. Fr. Cekada's notion of a formal succession which survives a period of vacancy seems unremarkable (except that it cannot be universal).

Against this we see the Bishop Sanborn approach. He quotes the theologians or canonists referring to material succession and applies what they say to the situation in which a man claims an office and indeed has some of its powers (the power to appoint cardinals, for example) yet does not have the office itself (I admit, this seems like Lewis Carroll type nonsense to me.) So what was meant to describe a vacant office ends up being used to describe an office which is at least partially occupied or even "embarrassed" (i.e. filled, but not able to be exercised by its possessor).

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

Quote:

One thing strikes me as a huge contrast between them: Des Lauriers had a complete theory

And, to say the true, this is a very good point in favor of his theory against other sedevacantists.

Well, it's a good point against the rest of us; it doesn't really say anything in favour of his theory, does it?

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

Granted, but I think that Abp Lefebvre had to have concluded that since they were doubtful Popes he couldn´t regard them as such. You know, Papa dubius Papa nullus

Yes, but you do understand that that saw only applies when there is a clear objective doubt which cannot be resolved. What if your doubt is about whether there is really an objective doubt?

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

The strange thing is that here in Argentina there was no rejection of him. At least not what you`d have expected.

If you mean, no new sedevacantism, is that really surprising? Except for sedevacantists, no traditional Catholic really expects the pope to be a Catholic, unless by some kind of legal fiction.

_________________In Christ our King.

Wed May 22, 2013 4:24 am

James Francis

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pmPosts: 80

Re: Fr. Chazal on two churches

Quote:

The Greeks are said to have only material succession precisely because even though the offices they claim are true offices of the Catholic Church, they do not have any true possession of them, merely a kind of violent occupation of the externals that belong by right to those offices. They lack formal succession. Therefore they have none of the powers of the offices they claim, none at all. Their claims are null. In the true Church succession is necessarily formal, of course. Fr. Cekada's notion of a formal succession which survives a period of vacancy seems unremarkable (except that it cannot be universal).

John, what do you make of the argument that the Greeks have jurisdiction supplied to them in certain acts, such as sacramental absolution?

Wed May 22, 2013 7:32 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Fr. Chazal on two churches

James Francis wrote:

John, what do you make of the argument that the Greeks have jurisdiction supplied to them in certain acts, such as sacramental absolution?

Well, I am not sure what the argument is, but I understand that it is asserted by some approved writers that the Greeks enjoy supplied jurisdiction for confessions, as you suggest. Now, assuming this to be true, jurisdiction is supplied for the act, and only for the act, and does not exist the instant before or after the act. If several acts are posited, each of which attracts supplied jurisdiction, then the same is true for each of those acts.

This has no bearing whatsoever on the question of ordinary jurisdiction, of course, and therefore cannot touch the question of the apostolic succession. The whole point of supplied jurisdiction is that it can only exist when habitual jurisdiction is lacking.

_________________In Christ our King.

Wed May 22, 2013 7:57 am

James Francis

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pmPosts: 80

Re: Fr. Chazal on two churches

Yes, I realize that it has no bearing on habitual jurisdiction which is either delegated to a person or attached to an office. I'm just thinking about the position that you maintain against the Guerardians, namely that they introduce novel categories to solve problems that supplied jurisdiction already deals with.Now, if it is true that the Greeks can have recourse to supplied jurisdiction for absolution, can they also claim supplied jurisdiction for other administrative acts? If there are approved authorities who say they can that would provide a handy illustration of your ecclesiology and perhaps a good argument against the Guerardians.But if the authorities rule out recourse to supplied jurisdiction for the Greeks except in the administration of sacraments(and I can think of at least one canonical reason for this) there may be difficulties for your position.

Wed May 22, 2013 8:11 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Fr. Chazal on two churches

Sorry James, I'm not sure I follow your argument.

_________________In Christ our King.

Wed May 22, 2013 9:18 am

James Francis

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pmPosts: 80

Re: Fr. Chazal on two churches

No worries, I realize I'm not being tremendously clear. I'm not really arguing either so much as asking. Numbers may help.

1. If I understand you aright, you reject the Guerardian talk of formal and material popes because you say that these are novel categories introduced to solve a genuine problem.2. The genuine problem- the continuance of authority in the Church- you suggest is solved by the traditional doctrine of supplied jurisdiction.3. I'm asking whether the supplied jurisdiction that you rely on in your argument, which would allow, for example, an ordinary to carry out various administrative acts requiring jurisdiction which would be supplied due to error of fact (i.e. people erroneously supposing this man to have been appointed to office); whether this supplied jurisdiction applies also to the Greeks? And if it doesn't, why doesn't it?

Have I got you right in 1 and 2? Is 3- my question- any clearer?

I have the awful sensation that I've thought of a question no one else has thought of- because it is so asinine perhaps!

Wed May 22, 2013 9:35 am

Cristian Jacobo

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pmPosts: 552Location: Argentina

Re: Fr. Chazal on two churches

John Lane wrote:

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

John Lane wrote:

Cristian, yes, but two things. 1. None of them can cite an authority.

Well Bp Sanborn quotes 16 theologians... so I`d say "none of them can cite an authority in support of this asertion"

Yes, of course, that is what I meant, and the assertion is so fundamental to their whole view!

Yes, I know you meant that

Quote:

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

I never thought the SSPX learned it from des Lauriers, but it is quite possible!

Well, Des Lauriers was the senior (by far) professor of dogmatic theology at Econe during the seminal period, and had the prestige of being the principle author of the Ottaviani Intervention, so if they didn't learn it from him, I don't know where they got it. They clearly didn't get it from the books - it isn't there!

I looked for it in Archbishop Lefebvre's writings, and it isn't there either, by the way. Indeed, he held the oposite view, as was evidenced in various places, but most clearly in his 1986 conference to seminarians regarding whether the See might have to be considered vacant. So the other members of the SSPX didn't get it from Lefebvre.

This makes a lot of sense to me.

Quote:

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

In a sense I think the SSPX are more logical (at least in this specific case), because they reason: "he is Catholic, therefore he is Pope" whereas des Lauriers said "he is Catholic but he is not Pope, in spite of a valid election".

I already have no patience for Des Lauriers' nonsense. Don't encourage me in my impatience!

Quote:

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

Well I was thinking specifically in the fact that for them the solution to this crisis will come from Francis, and also because for them the Catholic Church is the church to which Francis presides. SSPX cannot escape from this conclusion, whereas those who follow Guerard believe in a "material legal" hierarchy (whatever that means). Now my reasoning is the following:

This kind of apostolic succession is either a positive note or a negative note. If the first, then that is the Church and they have all the other notes. If it is not a positive note, then since that "negative note" is found only in the Church submitted to Bergo, therefore, as the theologians teach, that negative note "works" as if it were a positive note, which means it is a clear sign that the true Church is the one submitted to Bergo.The reason for this is that positive notes are found only in the Catholic Church whereas negative notes are found in the Catholic Church and may be found in other sects. Which means that if a negative note is found in one group, that is the true Church of Our Lord. This is common sense.

I presume you mean, "if a negative note is found in ONLY one group, that is the true Church of Our Lord."

Yes of course!, and you resumed in one sentence what I couldn´t say in several

Quote:

this is formal without material succession

A kind of a very strong anti-des Lauriers` theory, lol

Quote:

I have much more time for what I understand to be the (heretical) Cekada theory than for this one, Cristian. Fr. Cekada's theory is that all offices are vacant but the offices themselves still exist and therefore they provide for continuity with the Church of the past - this is formal without material succession;

How so? For having formal succession you need someone who in fact succeeds the Apostles, that is someone who has been invested with the missio canonica.

Quote:

when there is a pope, he will fill the offices which have continued to exist right through the universal vacancy and so there will be a material succession again which of course will also be formal. All good. The only problem with this theory is that it seems blatantly against very clear doctrine to admit a universal vacancy. So one premise is wrong, but the rest of the principles seem straightforward and exactly right to me.

Agreed.

Quote:

The Greeks are said to have only material succession precisely because even though the offices they claim are true offices of the Catholic Church, they do not have any true possession of them, merely a kind of violent occupation of the externals that belong by right to those offices. They lack formal succession. Therefore they have none of the powers of the offices they claim, none at all. Their claims are null. In the true Church succession is necessarily formal, of course. Fr. Cekada's notion of a formal succession which survives a period of vacancy seems unremarkable (except that it cannot be universal).

Yes, except for the fact that I wouldn`t call it "formal" succession, as I said above. I think what you have nowadays is the existence of offices in act but which are not formally possessed, or am I wrong?In any case, there is a material succession in the novus ordo, just exactly the same as the schismatics. Which is the difference?

A doubt that now comes to mi mind is: can we talk of material succession in the novus ordo even if those having the offices are not even true bishops?

Quote:

Against this we see the Bishop Sanborn approach. He quotes the theologians or canonists referring to material succession and applies what they say to the situation in which a man claims an office and indeed has some of its powers (the power to appoint cardinals, for example) yet does not have the office itself (I admit, this seems like Lewis Carroll type nonsense to me.) So what was meant to describe a vacant office ends up being used to describe an office which is at least partially occupied or even "embarrassed" (i.e. filled, but not able to be exercised by its possessor).

Indeed. This never made any sense to me

Quote:

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

Quote:

One thing strikes me as a huge contrast between them: Des Lauriers had a complete theory

And, to say the true, this is a very good point in favor of his theory against other sedevacantists.

Well, it's a good point against the rest of us; it doesn't really say anything in favour of his theory, does it?

Of course it doesn´t! But my point was that when someone comes to the conclusion that Bergo is not the Pope, he`d immediately try to look for the answer as to how to get a Pope, and Guerard`s theory has an answer for that (whether it is true or false is another story). Fr. Cekada doesn´t have any answer (as far as I know).I`m not saying either that he (or anyone) has to have an answer in order to be sede, of course!

Besides, if that person comes from the SSPX, then he`ll find some similarities between those 2 theories and therefore may have some extra reasons to like Guerard`s theory.

Quote:

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

Granted, but I think that Abp Lefebvre had to have concluded that since they were doubtful Popes he couldn´t regard them as such. You know, Papa dubius Papa nullus

Yes, but you do understand that that saw only applies when there is a clear objective doubt which cannot be resolved. What if your doubt is about whether there is really an objective doubt?

Lol! Well if he admitted the possibility that later on a Pope may declare JPII & cia. not being Popes, then he had doubts, if he had doubts...

Quote:

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

The strange thing is that here in Argentina there was no rejection of him. At least not what you`d have expected.

If you mean, no new sedevacantism, is that really surprising? Except for sedevacantists, no traditional Catholic really expects the pope to be a Catholic, unless by some kind of legal fiction.

[/quote]

Well, I actually meant (and "rejection" was not the most suitable word for it ) that they didn´t criticize Bergo knowing him much better than any other. I may understand they stop criticizing Ratzinger... but Bergo? I mean, he hasn`t even the appearance of even liking traditionalism as Ratzinger did. He is even more modernist that JPII!

No worries, I realize I'm not being tremendously clear. I'm not really arguing either so much as asking. Numbers may help.

1. If I understand you aright, you reject the Guerardian talk of formal and material popes because you say that these are novel categories introduced to solve a genuine problem.

Well, that's a comment I've made, but I really reject it because I think it's nonsense.

James Francis wrote:

2. The genuine problem- the continuance of authority in the Church- you suggest is solved by the traditional doctrine of supplied jurisdiction.

Partly, yes. My main point is that until somebody proves that all offices are vacant, they're not (and nobody will prove they are all vacant, because that's contrary to Christian doctrine). And if some offices are still occupied, there's no gap in the chain of authority which requires filling in by some aspect of the theory.

James Francis wrote:

3. I'm asking whether the supplied jurisdiction that you rely on in your argument, which would allow, for example, an ordinary

I've not mentioned the acts of non-ordinaries, as far as I recall, I've focussed on the acts of non-popes.

James Francis wrote:

... to carry out various administrative acts requiring jurisdiction which would be supplied due to error of fact (i.e. people erroneously supposing this man to have been appointed to office); whether this supplied jurisdiction applies also to the Greeks? And if it doesn't, why doesn't it?

Well, is it true that they receive supplied jurisdiction for confessions? If so, on what basis? Danger of death? Common error? It would be good if we had the authorities.

James Francis wrote:

I have the awful sensation that I've thought of a question no one else has thought of- because it is so asinine perhaps!

It sounds to me like you're actually thinking. The more of that we do about these matters, the better, I think.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum